School shootings blamed on Darwin

Hellbent said:

So why did grand daddy of the great white go bye bye?

It's still unknown. The best reason would be a change in climate or a depletion of food supply. This big guy made a meal out of orcas on a daily basis.

Technician said:

It's still unknown. The best reason would be a change in climate or a depletion of food supply. This big guy made a meal out of orcas on a daily basis.

I found a pretty good article explaining possible theories for its demise: http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/megalodon_extinction.htm

Basically the article says that the climate was getting cooler during the big guy's reign (16Ma to 1.6Ma). As the planet cooled (27 degrees F and we worry about 1 degree!) and the geography changed due to shifting continents that closed seaways and altered currents, the Megalodon wasn't able to adapt. A major factor seems to be that Megalodon could only live in warm water, as contrasted to today's sharks (including Great White) which prefer cold water. The sea level dropped 650 feet (good bye protection in the continental shelf for raising pups--look at a topographic map of the globe) which may have made finding a nursery to raise its pup safe from predators very difficult.

Megalodon vs Great White for scale: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Megalodon_scale1.png

one single tooth: http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/gigantic_megalodon.jpg

On a side note, why can't you pick an avatar?

Technician said:

On a side note, why can't you pick an avatar?

lol, I dunno. I kinda like this one. Maybe it will stay for a few minutes.

Okay, I've gotta ask - what bearing does your belief or lack there of in evolution have to do with anything? Believing, or not believing in evolution doesn't help anyone with anything - it's just a convenient way for 'intellectual types' to feel mentally superior to church people.

Basically - get over yourselves. There's no need to go out of your way to piss Fundies off. Can't we all just get along?

Gez said:

Tell that to the megalodon.

What about the whale shark, basking shark, great white and megamouth? Not as big as the megalodon, but still pretty big. Of course, size alone isn't an indicator of total fitness. There are plenty of small species that are (becoming) extinct, even some insect species. Big and small creatures can coexist and a small animal isn't any more likely to survive than a larger one.

There were just as many small and medium species, if not more, that went extinct during the KT impact and Ice Age, for example.

Technician said:

I'm so fucking tired of Creationism's connecting eugenics or race supremacy to Evolution.

Same here - lets grab some guns and remove them from the gene pool. ;-)

Visplane Overflow said:

Okay, I've gotta ask - what bearing does your belief or lack there of in evolution have to do with anything? Believing, or not believing in evolution doesn't help anyone with anything - it's just a convenient way for 'intellectual types' to feel mentally superior to church people.

Basically - get over yourselves. There's no need to go out of your way to piss Fundies off. Can't we all just get along?

All I see going on here are a bunch of Bible thumpers yet again relying on their false assertions that:

1. Morality can only proceed from belief in the Christian God.
   
2. Therefore all atheists are inherently immoral.
   
3. Because of this, all atheists (and scientists of course) instantly believe in Social Darwinism (which is something of a misnomer since Darwin never applied his theories to society), and therefore support evil stuff like eugenics, racial superiority theories, etc.
   
4. They all naturally want to do all of this shit to kill off the Christians, like those Columbine boys did to those poor Christian kids they shot after asking them if they believed in God or not ***
   

So don't be yelling at us when we didn't start the fight.

*** Didn't actually happen, but doesn't keep the martyr myth from living on in the minds of all fundies who are convinced the entire world is out to get them. Hallelujah and pass the Parkay.

Yes, exactly. Working out evolutino has helped us work out other biological puzzles. This is recognized by all the churchgoers who do believe in evolution. There are a huge number of those around. Ignorant crap like these guys are spouting needs to be stopped and not tolerated just because it's coming from the mouths of some victims' parents.

Quasar said:

Paranoid fundies =O

Uhh, maybe Fundamentalists aren't the only ones that think the world is out to get them - I never said anything about atheism, morality, eugenics, racism or even suggest that I'm a good old Christian - I just made mention of the fact that arguing about evolution is really pointless, since neither side of the equation promotes or hinders any scientific progress. I also suggested that it's mostly used by people as a platform for establishing mental superiority over Religious folk.

Don't put words in my mouth, I still want to know how somebody else's belief in creationism stalls the scientific community.

Visplane Overflow said:

Don't put words in my mouth, I still want to know how somebody else's belief in creationism stalls the scientific community.

It stalls it when militant Creationists disguise it as science, force it into schools, claim that evolution is "just a theory" (so is gravity, but nobody is arguing for intelligent falling), claim evolution is controversial and without evidence or compare it to the Holocaust. The idea of creation isn't offensive as a lot of religions have a creation story, nor are those that believe in it a problem, it's those that wield it like a club to drive a wedge between the public and the scientific community that are the problem.

Keep in mind that it's only Christian ultra fundamentalists who push for "intelligent design" as a valid, "superior" theory to evolution. I'm sure they wouldn't be okay if it was the Muslim or Hindu view of creation that was being taught in classrooms.

Visplane Overflow said:

Don't put words in my mouth, I still want to know how somebody else's belief in creationism stalls the scientific community.

The problem is when they start pushing for "Creation science" to taught as well, or Evolution not to be taught at all.

So basically you're upset that they want their theory to be taught alongside, or that they want to remove the teaching of evolution? Let's work on that for a bit.

Teaching both theories is not an issue - since the omission of one is just that - removing extra data for people to consider on their own, which as intelligent, enlightened people, you should take issue with that.

Pushing for only Creationism in schools does sound like a problem - but that's up to the school to decide (as this represents the majority opinion of the area the school is in), and as well the kids are always free to research this stuff on their own. That's what libraries are for. I would assume you believe that an intelligent person could not even contemplate a silly idea like Creationism, or Intelligent Design, so what's the harm in placating the Christians and letting people decide on their own?

The way I see it, the less strife we create the better. Try to avoid pissing people off where possible, as it creates needless problems.

I don't think the theory of Evolution is something you must know in order to be a rational, intelligent human being - but this opinion is an extremely unpopular one.

Oh, and saying that 'the fundies started it first!!' is not an acceptable reason to not be civil towards them. Just like if they said 'The Darwinists started it first!'. Inappropriate. So once again, where specifically is the lack of faith in the theory of Evolution actually hindering scientific progress? To be honest, I don't think many die-hard Christian fundamentalists were going to be involved in the cure for AIDS or cancer. So...let's hear it.

There is evidence that humans coexisted with Dinosaurs, not sure how they would have survived the massive Asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and caused nuclear winter styled weather for many years but there are cave carvings of dinosaurs that exist. I do not believe we evolved from apes, I believe we have existed for longer on this planet then we know. The oldest artifact found on the planet is about 460,000,000 years old and it is said that there could be evidence 2500,000,000 years old. How long have we really been around in one form or another no one really knows. There is no evidence that the planet is only 6000 years old of course, it is 4.5,000,000,000 years old. So no one really knows yet.

The thing is that, either way, they're pushing for obscurantism and confusion in young minds. Also, all the bullshit they churn out to try to discredit evolution doesn't help, either.

Doesn't help in what way? By being so vehemently opposed to Creationism, you could be accused of obscurantism as well. There's no reason to be afraid of teaching both subjects in school - there's little reason to teach much of either to begin with. I'm still failing to see where belief in evolution makes your life or others provably better? Or creationism making things provably worse?

neubejiita said:

There is evidence that humans coexisted with Dinosaurs

yes because they're all around you and they have feathers and beaks and some do tricks and curse at you. you eat some of them.

Csonicgo said:

yes because they're all around you and they have feathers and beaks and some do tricks and curse at you. you eat some of them.

I highly doubt that any of us here are surrounded by other humans. Oh wait...dinos? Nevermind.

neubejiita said:

There is evidence that humans coexisted with Dinosaurs

As noted before, birds are dinosaurs. Humans are coexisting with dinosaurs right now, taming them and eating them.

But if you want to say there is evidence humans lived during the Cretaceous, then we'll have to laugh at you.

Visplane Overflow said:

Doesn't help in what way? By being so vehemently opposed to Creationism, you could be accused of obscurantism as well.

Creating confusion between actual science and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is a form of obscurantism. Creationism can have its place in scientific studies, as long as the object of these studies is religious thoughts. But definitely not in biology.

You seem to think that encouraging people to be ignorant of what real science is, and how the scientific method really works, and what the results obtained really were, does not hinder scientific progress.

"Intelligent Design" is just Creationism with a pseudo scientific name. There is nothing scientific about it as it is impossible to prove that an intelligent creator had a hand in our creation. And usually when someone is talking about "Intelligent Design", they're talking about the Christian view of creation. Just about every religion has it's own creation story, so if you open the door to "Intelligent Design", you open the door to Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Greco roman, Viking etc. views on creation.

I have nothing against teaching religion and religious views in school, but I feel it should be an all or nothing deal. Either you teach all religions and their views or don't teach any of them. That said, Creationism itself doesn't belong in a science classroom.

You can't disprove that there is an all-powerful deity watching over you, due to the inscrutable nature of gods - He could choose not to ever reveal Himself for His own reasons.

Evolution theory cannot be proven, therefore it's pseudo-science? They can do it too. Do you see how that's erroneous logic? It doesn't get us anywhere. The 'Can't be proven' rhetoric works both ways, and is effectively worthless in establishing whether creationism and evolution are good, bad or neutral concepts.

I still say that both beliefs are just as irrelevant, since a person should have the freedom to make up their own mind about things. You don't want to be against freedom, do you?

Oh and before anyone gets confused, I'm an Atheist, don't start thinking I'm some bible thumper.

Visplane Overflow said:

You can't disprove that there is an all-powerful deity watching over you, due to the inscrutable nature of gods - He could choose not to ever reveal Himself for His own reasons.

And you can't disprove Russell's teapot either. If we start admitting as equally valid everything that can be neither proven nor disproven, we'll have to cram our heads with a lot of useless rubbish.

Gez said:

And you can't disprove Russell's teapot either. If we start admitting as equally valid everything that can be neither proven nor disproven, we'll have to cram our heads with a lot of useless rubbish.

Yes, I concur. In fact, that's what I was trying to say in the previous post. It's what I meant by "The 'can't be proven' rhetoric is ... worthless".

I'm still waiting for a legitimate point that would lead one to conclude that Creationism is intrinsically bad, or that Evolution theory is intrinsically good. Assuming we can find neither case to be true, I think we can safely say that it doesn't fucking matter as much everyone says it does.

Visplane Overflow said:

You can't disprove that there is an all-powerful deity watching over you, due to the inscrutable nature of gods - He could choose not to ever reveal Himself for His own reasons.

What you say is possible, but you can't prove a negative. In other words, you can's ask me to prove God doesn't exist. However, the evidence for existence is sparse at best and nonexistent at worst. Everything that happens on this planet either happens as a result of natural processes or as a result of human/animal action.

The fact that everything we have seen so far can be explained without the need for a god is pretty damning evidence that either one doesn't exist or that one hasn't been active in a long time. That leaves us back at square one: we can't prove or disprove God's existence. But just because we can't prove something exists doesn't mean we should believe in it anyway. The same argument can be made for anything that hasn't been proven to exist, such as fairies, big foot or unicorns. We have to work with what we have rather than throw reasoning out the window because we can't prove God exists.

For the record, there is nothing wrong about a belief in God and how your God works is irrelevant. But if your God can't be proven, then don't force it on others.

Evolution theory cannot be proven, therefore it's pseudo-science? They can do it too.

Except evolution can be and has been proven. Otherwise how do you explain the vast fossil evidence, germ and virus mutation, extinction, or the fact that new species don't appear out of thin air?

If God created all the animals and the Earth, why would such a being let any of his creations disappear from the face of the planet? Why not replace them when we're not looking? It shouldn't be that difficult.

Do you see the problem with that sort of reasoning?

It doesn't get us anywhere. The 'Can't be proven' rhetoric works both ways, and is effectively worthless in establishing whether creationism and evolution are good, bad or neutral concepts.

You're taking a very South Park "everyone is wrong!" approach here, which is trite. Just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean one of them isn't wrong.

I still say that both beliefs are just as irrelevant, since a person should have the freedom to make up their own mind about things. You don't want to be against freedom, do you?

Nice, the ol' "yur taking away MAH FREEDUMS" argument.

I'm not against the freedom to believe, say, or feel whatever you want to, but that doesn't give anyone the right to throw a wrench into the scientific community and use strong arm tactics to breed fear and confusion about valid scientific theories in the populace. Would you be so inclined to let someone act on the belief they could fly when they can't? Just because you have the freedom to feel and believe doesn't mean you have the freedom to act on those beliefs. Freedom is not without consequence, especially when those freedoms collide with another person's, or in this case, an entire community's.

Edit:

Visplane Overflow said:

I'm still waiting for a legitimate point that would lead one to conclude that Creationism is intrinsically bad, or that Evolution theory is intrinsically good. Assuming we can find neither case to be true, I think we can safely say that it doesn't fucking matter as much everyone says it does.

The argument isn't about which is good or bad, it's about which is factual and scientific. As far as we can tell, evolution is scientific and Creationism is not.

There's nothing good or bad about the theory of gravity, even though it causes problems and results in people's deaths.

Snarboo :
Missed the point, catastrophically.

You're a goddamn moron, aren't you? For the last time, I am not from the South, I am an Atheist, I do believe in science.

I would ask you to produce something that completely and undeniably proves evolution theory or something that completely and undeniably proves that someone's God exists. These tasks are both impossible feats. (...if it's a fact, why is it called a theory?...)

Consider this : "Everything that happens on this planet either happens as a result of natural processes or as a result of human/animal action."

This is the belief of someone that puts his faith into science. Someone with faith in God, on the other hand, would tell you that God has created these natural processes and is still therefore the creator of the world, man and the universe.

God can do anything, anything at all. Thusly, his existence cannot be proven or disproven since he has that mystical, reality-bending super power.

With that out of the way, you did mention in your post that creationists will "throw a wrench into the scientific community and use strong arm tactics to breed fear and confusion about valid scientific theories in the populace." - that's a pretty boisterous claim, one that you would need to back up with facts.

What strongarm tactics? Which creationists specifically? What wrench exactly? Has anyone come to any personal, physical, mental or emotional harm specifically because a group of people decided to believe that God put them on the Earth? And don't start that line of bullshit about religious wars, and the related crimes against humanity - keep in mind that science keeps murdering people as well. Technology and religion are both generally morally neutral - it's what you do with them, that makes them good or bad. Some people use the bible as a sword; others as a shield.

It is my belief that indoctrinated Atheists such as yourself reject God solely on the basis that it makes you feel in control, or wiser than other people.

Why is it okay to burn bibles, but not to burn text books?

My stance, once again is that your opinion regarding creationism or or evolution is pointless, because belief in either concept does not have any true consequences for anyone but the individual.

Visplane Overflow said:

You're a goddamn moron, aren't you? For the last time, I am not from the South, I am an Atheist, I do believe in science.

Except I never made those claims? My arguments are based solely on your own words.

I would ask you to produce something that completely and undeniably proves evolution theory or something that completely and undeniably proves that someone's God exists. These tasks are both impossible feats.

Proving God exists is impossible, but proving evolution does isn't. Explain to me germ mutation if evolution doesn't exist. We now have new strains of the flu which I'm sure you've heard about in the news. You hear stories all the time about antibiotic resistant strains of common infections.

You might say "But those are germs and not people." However, it makes sense that we would see evolution and mutation in germs first given that they are simple, one celled organisms. Proving evolution on a small scale also proves it on a larger scale, at least to a degree. If you want more proof, look up selective breeding and domestication. That's less natural, but it shows how humans have exploited natural features of living beings to breed entirely new groups of animals.

You also haven't explained the vast fossil evidence we have and the fact that we can clearly see organisms that are ancestors to creatures that are currently alive.

(...if it's a fact, why is it called a theory?...)

The word theory doesn't mean what you think it does. You do realize that gravity, a force we see everyday, is called the theory of gravity by scientists, right? I doubt you would stop believing in gravity just because it's a theory, however.

This is the belief of someone that puts his faith into science. Someone with faith in God, on the other hand, would tell you that God has created these natural processes and is still therefore the creator of the world, man and the universe.

It's not faith to assume the world will exist the way it has every previous day of my life when I wake up. Nor is it faith to assume that when I drop something, it will fall. At least it's not faith in the sense that believing in God is.

The laws of physics could spontaneously change at any moment, but they haven't yet and I'm not too worried about that. Likewise, I don't believe in God because I have come to the conclusion that the world can function without one. Nor do I believe just because there is the possibility that God could exist.

God can do anything, anything at all. Thusly, his existence cannot be proven or disproven since he has that mystical, reality-bending super power.

By that definition, God isn't scientific. If something cannot be proven to be repeatable and measurable, it cannot be said to be scientific. It doesn't disprove it, but again, you can't prove a negative. If there is a test out there that can prove God in a repeatable, measurable way, then that is evidence for God. Otherwise, it's based on a belief.

With that out of the way, you did mention in your post that creationists will "throw a wrench into the scientific community and use strong arm tactics to breed fear and confusion about valid scientific theories in the populace." - that's a pretty boisterous claim, one that you would need to back up with facts.

When I talk about Creationists, I am not talking about farmer John in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. In all likely hood, farmer John doesn't hurt anyone and is free to feel and believe as he chooses. I don't want to take away John's right to decide for himself.

No, I am talking about militant Creationists who are almost always ultra fundamentalist Christians with an agenda. They do exist and they don't like evolution.

What strongarm tactics? Which creationists specifically? What wrench exactly? Has anyone come to any personal, physical, mental or emotional harm specifically because a group of people decided to believe that God put them on the Earth?

Are you not familiar with the fairly recent case with the Kansas board of education? A case where Christian fundamentalists forced their way into the board and nearly overruled the teaching of evolution in Kansas classrooms? The same Kansas board that had warning stickers about evolution put into biology text books, making students believe that evolution was an unfounded theory that had wormed it's way into education for no reason?

Do some research and you'll find there are many organizations under the guise of political, religious and scientific institutions that espouse hardcore Christian beliefs. They might hide it behind the banner of "intelligent design" or say that the controversy should be taught, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

It is my belief that indoctrinated Atheists such as yourself reject God solely on the basis that it makes you feel in control, or wiser than other people.

Actually, I would define myself as Agnostic. I can't prove or disprove God exists, and until it shows itself to me, I don't feel the need to believe in one. I don't necessarily disbelieve, either.

For the record, there is no reason Evolution and Creationism can't coexist, as they do for some people. For all we know, God could be guiding evolution through natural processes, or such a being could have constructed the universe and its rules much like a game programmer. It's hard to say. Until I come into contact with such a being, I don't feel it wise to weigh in on the subject either way or force others to believe what I do.

That said, that doesn't mean I believe years of scientific study and hard work should be thrown out because there could be a God. Science is the only thing we have that can explain the universe without the need for a complex, incomprehensible being at the helm of everything. It's also a touchy subject and is not appropriate in a science classroom. If a student wants to learn about God or creation, he can either do research on his own, ask his parents or sign up for a theology class. It's not the state's job to teach religion or any of its views

My stance, once again is that your opinion regarding creationism or or evolution is pointless, because belief in either concept does not have any true consequences for anyone but the individual.

On an individual scale, you're absolutely right. However, if the theory of evolution was banned from being believed in, spoken of, debated or discussed, that would effect me, no?

Visplane Overflow said:

(...if it's a fact, why is it called a theory?...)

In common parlance, a theory is a hypothesis that's not yet verified. In scientific lingo, however, it's a system of explanations.

In short, the theory of evolution is the combination of several mechanisms, which have all been proved on micro and macro scales. These mechanisms are random mutations (proven and understood), culling of said mutations through reproduction or not (proven and understood) which can happen naturally ("natural selection") or artificially (breeding), and genetic drift resulting in speciation (proven and understood). Each of the elements building the theory of evolution is a proven and understood fact. So it is a theory in the scientific sense of the word, and it is more than an unverified hypothesis.

Visplane Overflow said:

I would ask you to produce something that completely and undeniably proves evolution theory or something that completely and undeniably proves that someone's God exists. These tasks are both impossible feats. (...if it's a fact, why is it called a theory?...)

It only requires a handful of generations to provide evidence supporting evolution. Fun fact - the shift towards softer processed foods has resulted in modern Humans having smaller, lighter jawbones.

God can do anything, anything at all. Thusly, his existence cannot be proven or disproven since he has that mystical, reality-bending super power.

Snarboo had disproven God's existence a couple of posts back. I assume there's a kink in reality somewhere that's preventing you from reading it.

With that out of the way, you did mention in your post that creationists will "throw a wrench into the scientific community and use strong arm tactics to breed fear and confusion about valid scientific theories in the populace." - that's a pretty boisterous claim, one that you would need to back up with facts.

What strongarm tactics? Which creationists specifically? What wrench exactly?

If I may backtrack several posts earlier, where you'd answered your own question...

"Pushing for only Creationism in schools does sound like a problem - but that's up to the school to decide (as this represents the majority opinion of the area the school is in), and as well the kids are always free to research this stuff on their own. That's what libraries are for."

What if majority opinion also favours removing evolutionist books from the local library? You then create an enclave where one point of view wins by default because the other is forbidden knowledge.

Snarboo said:

The word theory doesn't mean what you think it does. You do realize that gravity, a force we see everyday, is called the theory of gravity by scientists, right? I doubt you would stop believing in gravity just because it's a theory[/i], however.

Well, they're actually laws of gravity now, but yes, the point still stands.

DuckReconMajor said:

Well, they're actually laws of gravity now, but yes, the point still stands.

Good point. :p There are still a number of well understood phenomena that are called theories. I think plate tectonics are still a scientific theory, right?